-Bring US troops home (no more useless wars, increase national security)

-Protect liberty and freedoms of the people (build the middle class)

He's got 35 years of integrity and credibility supporting him with 1 message. When he was laughed at, he stuck to it. He's not a sell out. He puts his principles first, and he's right. I support Ron Paul.

We can't go Greece...that leads to destruction. We can go Ron Paul...that leads to prosperity.

It may hurt getting back on track, as the US dug a deep hole, but fight he shall.

She shares her victory (the lady with short hair right before my niece) in this video that has almost 300k views in about a week. There is a bit of a back story that I would like to share. When the terrible news was broken, we invited Dan + Rach into our home where they could live (they lived about 1hr away from close family). And for 13 months, they stayed in our home while Rachel fought breast cancer, and won. My other brother Brad and his family was also living in our home. In all, we had 3 families totaling 12 people; yep, 3 brothers, their wives and kids. With my 2 bro's wives and kids, we had a lot going on. What an incredible experience as we could stand with Rachel. To say it was not scary at times was an understatement. But when Rachel was cleared of all cancer, my heart leaped for joy. It was an honor to participate in the journey with Rachel in a small way as our family tried to support and encourage her. Her mindset, posture and attitude was unreal. She never complained, said 'why me' or let negative emotions rule her (at least from what I could observe). She came across as strong and focused on the next treatment. She appreciates life, baking, friends, family and most of all, her son Jack and her husband Daniel. I gained an incredible perspective on her attitude of thankfulness (and about 10 lbs from her yummy baking). She was thankful for what she had. It was a very real lesson for me. Rachel did not focus on being a victim, but 100% came off as being a victor...that makes her one of my hero's (regardless of what the outcome would have been) Rachel, I love you and am proud of you. You taught me thankfulness through your lifestyle of generosity and giving.

I encourage you today to take a brief moment and reflect on what you are thankful for.

Brian Topp, a former party president and a senior advisor to Layton, says he wants the NDP to make higher taxes for the rich a key plank in the next election campaign. "That money should be redeployed to more important priorities like tackling child poverty, public transit, real job creation... post-secondary education, the health care system, the environment."

This is an article on Jurisdiction. We are responsible for what we have jurisdiction over. For example, I have jurisdiction within my home and therefore a responsibility to be a loving father. Consequently, Brian Topp does not have jurisdiction within my home, therefore no corresponding responsibility to father my children. We are responsible for what falls within our jurisdiction.

The government (across all party lines) has done a brutal job defining what their jurisdiction is. By being murky on jurisdiction, they can be equally vague on their responsibility. This vagueness is rarely if ever clarified, therefore the logical basis for policy is never justified beyond, "a need that the government thinks it should meet'. I recently laid into the Conservatives for not acting out of a 'limited government principle', rather, diving into multi-million dollar culture investments...without any justification as to defending how this is even within their jurisdiction to entertain. If the Conservatives cannot justify how an expense is within their jurisdiction, then they should not be able to take responsibility and therefore they must say no to the proposed expense. No responsibility, no expense. By blacking out the discussion on jurisdiction, the governments have a hay-day free for all with respect to budgets and programs (check debt level/tax rates out if questions).

The same concern obviously extends to Mr. Brian Topp and the NDP party. There is no logical argument at all (not even a bad one) for defining why it is the governments jurisdiction to tax and give in such areas (but not limited to) child poverty, public transit, real job creation...post-secondary, heath care, environment etc.

What if Brian Topp expanded to the list? What would you say if Brian Topp said, "That money should be re-deployed to more important priorities like parenting your child via 'observers' to ensure you are doing your job correctly, buying your food to ensure it's healthy and paying for a state sponsored 'spiritual gathering place' that we encourage all Canadians to embrace."? What would be a natural reaction? Well, one would be, "that's ridiculous, you don't have any business telling me what to do in those area's". And that's the key word, 'those'. Our awareness of jurisdiction tells us intuitively that government cannot encroach on those area's because it is a clear violation of what they have jurisdiction over. And since we intuitively know and believe this, we claim they therefore have no responsibility to act! Thing get murky when we move from obvious examples to things like Mr. Topp claims. He thinks government has 100% jurisdiction and therefore responsibility to enter into those area's he lists.

Just because a cause is good does not mean it falls within the category of 'legitimate government expense' any more then the NDP passing a law to have 1 government observer watch our children at all times to make sure they don't fall off a cliff. Every parent agrees it's good not to have a child fall off a cliff, but no parent should conclude that the government therefore has jurisdiction to impose laws to have watchful eyes. Citing 'good cause' is not grounds for blitzing into our lives with laws and control. It's an invalid argument to suggest otherwise,unless you can somehow defend, "I can prove it's good to eat healthy, therefore it's important for the government to create laws determining our diets to ensure we do not make harmful choices". A good thing needing to be done does not justify government intervention. Given this be true, I extend this to poverty, education, jobs, etc. Just because those are good causes does not mean the government has jurisdiction...therefore I ask:

What defines that which government has jurisdiction over? Does the NDP have jurisdiction and therefore responsibility to force us to give up money to pay for the list Topps describes above? If so, what gives them that jurisdiction, and why? Is majority says so? Somehow whatever the masses thinks is best is right? Pragmatically or morally speaking?

As I see it, there is not a strong argument I have observed that acts to define jurisdiction for government to act in so many area's as Topp defines. Because I have not seen any from the NDP (throw Liberal into the mix), I will argue on their behalf (I'm a free market guy, so go easy on me):

We believe that a strong portion of the means of production and distribution should move away from corporations and the private citizen and into the hands of government. We believe that government should enter into various area's of ones life (see Topps list) and make choices on their behalf (i.e creating programs with parameters). We have jurisdiction to do this because the corporations and income earners do not (entirely) own the means of production and distribution, but the people do, and as the people's representatives, we will do our job and tax and redeploy capital. The jurisdiction is created from the will of the people giving us permission to tax and re-spend as a form of justice, thus our term, social justice. We are righting the wrongs of the free market by 'leveling the playing field'. The leveling of the playing field and helping others is what we call compassion, fairness and moving forward together. We believe equality is just and closing income gap is creating that just society. By nature of us having a responsibility to create a just society, we therefore have jurisdiction within the realm of anything that is a social injustice. We will therefore continually move into area's of perceived social injustice and thus expand our jurisdiction to right those wrongs (and keep the programs to maintain justice, least we regress). We have jurisdiction to establish justice by the will of the people and justice is a fair, tolerant and equal society. The free market has to be (take your pick) kept in check/broken and rebuilt to ensure we right these wrong. Therefore, Mr. Topp has jurisdiction and thus responsibility to act within the list provided.

I remain open and welcome anyone to correct, clarify or add, your comments are welcome below:

Friday, 21 October 2011

(2 swears..or so)
The most logical and coherent speech from an occupy wall street protester to date. This guy's message is the only legitimate thing I have seen come from wall street! If this was the ONLY message, I would join the movement. Sadly, it's the free market on trial, not abuses. Regardless, great speech...at least check out a minute or 2.
This guy wants to free the markets and end government crazy stuff.
Capitalism needs this message.

Freeing the market, ending the fed, government waste/spending and ending crony capitalism is the answer here. If the left truly wanted to end the abuses, this would be the answer they piggy back on. Sadly, this guy is an incredible minority in the marches: it's all about taking and re-giving under larger government. Social equality and justice through forced redistribution of wealth is what this march is about. Anyway, it was great to see this beacon of light in a wold of dim protesters.

The most logical and coherent speech from an occupy wall street protester to date. This guy's message is the only legitimate thing I have seen come from wall street! If this was the ONLY message, I would join the movement. Sadly, it's the free market on trial, not abuses. Regardless, great speech...at least check out a minute or 2.
This guy wants to free the markets and end government crazy stuff.
Capitalism needs this message.

Freeing the market, ending the fed, government waste/spending and ending crony capitalism is the answer here. If the left truly wanted to end the abuses, this would be the answer they piggy back on. Sadly, this guy is an incredible minority in the marches: it's all about taking and re-giving under larger government. Social equality and justice through forced redistribution of wealth is what this march is about. Anyway, it was great to see this beacon of light in a wold of dim protesters.

The subtly of deception is some on the left attempting to silence the obvious class warfare attack on capitalism with pacifying comments like greed being the issue, not capitalism.

If this genius does not like cooperate greed, then don't buy their products or services. The invisible hand of the market should weed greedy companies out and hopefully companies like this will grow and proposer:

The problem is not corporate greed, or excessive pay. The problem is crony capitalism under girded by a massive spending, debt driven out of control government, oh and their plans to get even fatter with this new health care bill.

The problem is that the success of North America has brought us to think that we can undermine the free market and mandate forced giving under the pretense, "rights and compassion". This hug-fest has failed. We are crippled by our debt and inefficiency. Time to give the reigns back to the free market. And one more point, if the left is against greed, then they should remove the plank from their eye first. Greed drives the insatiable need to have and want what is not theirs. Greed drives the left to demand more of what they did not work for, or pay for. Greed pours out of men and women's hearts to genuinely believe in their heart of hearts that other people forcibly paying the way for others is the best way to work. This is greed. So before the marchers scream at greedy corporations, look no further then their positions. At least corporations earned what they have.

If a law were passed that made stealing legal, would stealing still be morally wrong?

Here's the problem. It would still be wrong. It's problematic for the left to state that something transcendent imposes a reality greater then government law because it undermines their own demands for more. How can you take from somebody, what that higher power says does not belong to you?

A big problem at occupy wall street is theft of personal property. The basis of the movement is, "I am entitled to what you own...all your evil excess". "People who are successful have more then me and are therefore ripping me off, thus I am entitled to a share of their work" is partly the justification for theft with the group think marchers.

Theft is wrong. It is wrong to be entitled to one's $5, 000 mac computer, as it is wrong to be entitled to ones success. Coveting is when you wrongfully want what is not yours and theft is when you take it. They are doing to themselves what they want to do to successful people: steal, at least they are consistent.
Well, until they say that the stealing of the mac is wrong. Why is stealing the mac computer wrong, but not stealing another persons hard earned wealth? Because they cheated? Sure, crony capitalism enabled and emboldened greed. Got it. Then the solution is to make the market more free, smarter and less regulation, and less government intervention. The direction this rally is headed is undermining capitalism: it's class warfare.

By marching at occupy wall street rallies, the illusion of empowerment is being conjured in the db levels of each event. Sadly, the marches will have the opposite impact as intended. Just like a fridge was not built to house hot molten lava, so our bodies were not built to covet and steal. I believe people will feel less empowered as they confer more power to a government to act more on their behalf. More laws will lead to more support for more people in more ways. This is a dangerous and effective way to kill innovation, pride of ownership, work ethic and further undermines one's moral convictions. The problem here is, 'more' government. The deepening of our quasi-socialist society will surely produce the opposite result that is intended. Today they march for 'social justice'...soon they will be marching to ward off austerity measures to keep their entitlement lifestyle (Spain, Italy) then they will be rioting like the Greeks to preserve some semblance of their once generous governments handouts in the face of an otherwise bankrupt nation. Government planned economies kill jobs, incentive, innovation and economic growth...all in the name of compassion, fairness and sharing. Reality is when you steal, nobody wins, and that is exactly what this movement wants to do, covet and steal what is not theirs. This movement, if it comes to fruition, will ruin our economy and I have a fading hope reason and not time will help all see this...

Paul Anderson makes a broad case for the imminent disaster of Ron Paul's policies. He essentially argues that cuts would cause a shock to the system and have an impact on the economy in a damaging way:

The FDA, the EPA, and the CDC will face cuts of 40%, 30%, and 20% respectively. At best, this would lead to massive delays in project approval or drug approval. At worst, this would directly lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.

If we destroy the FDA, thousands of children could be poisoned by unsafe food. If we eliminate FEMA, thousands will suffer after national disasters.

﻿

Ron Paul will cause the world to blow up...just you wait.

﻿ (and so on, and so on...)

Factors Mr. Anderson did not mention is time and degree. Mr. Anderson's concerns are valid: good roads, strong economy and safe foods etc.

Ron Paul focusing on what is right, true and good leaves him open to criticism since our society is more interested in me, myself and I. Regardless, basing policy on personal freedom according to the original constitution (fundamentally, that rights come from God, not man) will not necessarily come with a 'shock and awe' change that destroys 100's of thousands of US citizens. Cuts will come in degrees over time, which gives the free market time to adjust. For example, Maple Leaf Foods is restructuring manufacturing plants to enhance food safety. The free market will find producers who care about food safety, transparency and quality and elevate them to a more prominent status. There is no necessary connection between government oversight and actual safety. Food safety should be a focus for the free market: to gain trust through integrity and quality of product and process. If the government backed off, it would force a better relationship with producer and consumer (heaven forbid). There would not be mass death in the streets. We don't need an intermediary to babysit and us Mr. Anderson. If we cite corrupt companies who exploit their customers, then how long will they last? Not as long if the government stepped out! They would be gone due to responsibility being on the consumer to only buy from who they trust. Scamers would be bankrupt or in jail if laws are broken...not doing business, paying fines and arguing with bureaucracy.

With respect to the economy, the massive cuts will have likely create a contraction with GDP, but why is this a bad thing? Why is it often deemed a good thing to have massive consumer debt drive bubbles (like housing) and massive government debt drive inflation all in the name of 'growth'? We have a contracting manufacturing industry in N. America as a result of such policies. It is more logical to let the free market be free, end massive government debts and spending (in area's they have no jurisdiction anyway) and thus the immediate negative contraction in the economy will come with major benefits like:
-business hiring, expanding, investing
-more transparent relationships between company and consumer
-more personal responsibility and consideration before buying products (if the government is not there to hand-hold, it's up to the 2 parties to agree on the exchange and the consequences thereof)
-economic growth comes from innovation, hard work, personal responsibility driving choices...not government increasing and debt
-lower national debt increases dollar value (cost of bread is cheaper...which helps the middle and lower class)

Government expansion and debt created growth is a bubble that will Greece. Sorry, pop; the bubble will pop. I would rather it come via contractions in GDP via strategically implemented (over time) polices that increases personal freedoms which expands the free market rather then watch riots in the street when we realize our credit cards are maxed.
We are not entitled to entitlements; we happen to have them. We are entitled to our personal freedoms: spread the word and fight for them.

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Why is the term "Anti-Austerity" and not, "pro-bankruptcy"? The unnatural craving for other people's money is difficult to fathom. I thought our NDP party was bad. The NDP'ers are free market warriors of justice compared to the people of Greece. Perhaps France and Germany should pull out of their welfare bailout and we can let the people 'win': and all programs will be saved. Oh, oh...then they will not only default on their bonds, but will also bankrupt their government and lose much more then the proposed austerity. Are the protesters of Greece un-informed, or choosing to turn a blind eye?

Here is a more detailed description of their position...and yes, I am still working on my creativity...

Not so funny when taken into context:
Jesus came to heal the sick.
Jesus give a parable praising the increase of capital and scolding the burying of capital (at least a bank would have paid interest)
Jesus said, "love your neighbour" as one of the greatest things you can do.
Putting this all together, I have re-done the joke...which is not so funny anymore...
I guess it's easier share out of frustration and emotion

The problem is not lazy socialists. That is not the 'big claim' for the people who are for the free market.

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

1 Trillion in cuts is exactly what the US needs to get a handle on it's debt. Some economists argue it will lead to a recession. Well, current trends will lead to a Greece style collapse...so, take your pick. I'll take my the short term pain with an expanded free market, less (smarter) regulation, less debt and smaller government. This guy is more appealing then ever because we are living out the consequences of his warning from years ago: he was right. He is offering exactly what I believe Canada needs: an American government that knows it's role and stays in bounds. The left will not figure it out, so we need to live it out: create jobs via the free market being free! Live it out by taking your saved tax dollars and re-investing (yes, you can invest with capital, and not debt...crazy notion eh?). Real growth is possible. Ron Paul seems to be the only US politician with the political backbone to take us there! Hey Ron, this entry represents the views of at least 40 Canadians, you have our support!

Monday, 17 October 2011

"I got my wife a new 4S and loaded up Find My Friends without her knowing. She told me she was at her friend's house in the East Village. I've had suspicions about her meeting this guy who lives uptown. Lo and behold, Find my Friends has her right there."

It's too easy to throw the stones of judgment from afar, so I won't comment anothers fall directly. I would like for you to consider the most logical and economical type of government: self government. It requires the least amount of taxes, regulation and litigation. If this lady (allegedly) had more self government, she likely would not have required external government (suspicious tracking husband) to hold her to account. My desire is to hold myself accountable in life to family and loved ones so that I can internally govern myself and hopefully make the right decisions. Self government is cheap, logical and economical. When we can't make wise choices from governing ourselves, we typically have laws/consequences that keep us in check. Sadly, liberalism has taken 'self government' to an entirely different notion now openly called "together government" where we all throw money into a pot and they divvy up (debt and widening income gaps to show for it.) So much for the cheap and logical self government. Needing externally imposed agents to help run our lives where law's can't is expensive to families...in more way's then one. May the debt levels of the world be a sober reminder of the costs of abandoning self government on a political level. May this 'iCheat' app be a reminder on the impacts of not making ourselves voluntarily accountable and finding rewards in self government.